NUCLEAR TEST-BAN TREATY NEGOTIATIONS MUST BE PRESSED, CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT IS TOLD
Press Release
DCF/260/
NUCLEAR TEST-BAN TREATY NEGOTIATIONS MUST BE PRESSED, CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT IS TOLD
19960514 Ministers from Brazil, United Kingdom among Speakers As 1996 Session Resumes; Danger of Existing Stockpiles Is StressedGENEVA, 14 May (UN Information Service) -- The welcome change several years ago in the relationship between the world's two main nuclear Powers had not led to the abolition of their huge stockpiles of nuclear weapons, the Minister of External Relations of Brazil told the Conference on Disarmament as it began the second part of its 1996 session this morning.
Those stockpiles, said Minister Luiz Felipe Lampreia, now posed three kinds of menace -- the risk of nuclear accident, the possibility of theft enabling unthinkable nuclear terrorism, and the very real threat of de facto nuclear proliferation. The only viable way to confront those dangers was for the world to work towards the complete elimination of nuclear weapons.
The weekly plenary session of the Conference also heard statements by a Minister of State of the United Kingdom, and representatives of Egypt, Croatia, Russian Federation, and Sri Lanka. There were calls for continuation of the negotiations for a comprehensive nuclear test-ban treaty, said to be urgent in view of the 28 June deadline for their conclusion, to allow adoption of the anticipated treaty by a resumed fiftieth session of the General Assembly.
David Davis, Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs of the United Kingdom, said his country's policy on nuclear testing was that there should be a universal, indefinite and effectively verifiable treaty that would ban all nuclear-test explosions. A test ban would be a genuine sacrifice for the United Kingdom, as it would limit the capability of all nuclear-weapon States to develop new weapons and to modernize their existing stocks. But that was a price worth paying.
Ambassador Bernard Goonetilleke, of Sri Lanka, summarizing the state of the nuclear test-ban treaty negotiations, said convergence of views still had to be achieved on matters of scope, preamble, composition of the executive council, the technical secretariat, the international data centre, the on-site inspection regime, and entry into force. If the goal of 28 June was to be reached, he noted, the Conference needed to move at a much faster pace.
Statements
LUIZ FELIPE LAMPREIA, Minister of External Relations of Brazil, said his country was currently coordinator of the Group of 21, a caucus long known for its unwavering commitment to world peace. Some of its members had been calling for a comprehensive test-ban treaty for over 40 years. The creation of a peaceful and stable environment that was conducive to development was a priority for Brazil; it hoped the recent conclusion of the Pelindaba and the Bangkok treaties opened an unprecedented opportunity for a nuclear-free southern hemisphere, to be achieved through a "building-blocks" approach.
The principle that nuclear energy should be used only for peaceful purposes was enshrined in the 1988 Brazilian Constitution, Mr. Lampreia continued. Internal public opinion simply did not tolerate bottomless military budgets any more; it also showed growing difficulty in accepting the continuing need for, let alone the morality of, weapons of such destructive force and indiscriminate effects. Clearly, much more needed to be done if the States holding stockpiles and arsenals of weapons of mass destruction were truly to heed the call of significant constituencies within their own countries, as well as of the international community as a whole.
The end of nuclear bipolarity had had the immediate result of making disarmament seem outdated, both because the former opponents evolved a new pattern of cooperation and because the new security concerns -- regional conflicts and the so-called non-military threats -- were not amenable to solutions in terms of multilateral arms limitation agreements. That perception, however, was being superseded by a widespread sentiment of abhorrence of nuclear weapons, as the intense reactions worldwide against nuclear testing had shown just recently.
The fact was that the welcome changes in the relationship between the two main nuclear Powers had not abolished their huge stockpiles. Those arsenals posed today three very different kinds of menace: the risk of nuclear accident; the possibility of nuclear theft enabling the unthinkable nuclear terrorism; and the very real threat of de facto legitimating nuclear proliferation. Only working towards the complete elimination of nuclear weapons would confront those dangers. The Conference on Disarmament should be allowed to take up its rightful place as the primary forum for nuclear disarmament negotiations.
MOUNIR ZAHRAN (Egypt) said 45 States had signed the African Nuclear-Weapons-Free Zone Treaty (Treaty of Pelindaba) on 11 April 1996 in Cairo. The signatory States decided that the first session of the States parties to the Treaty should be held not later than one year after its entry into force. This largest nuclear-weapons-free zone, in terms of the number of States involved, represented yet another important building block in global efforts to eliminate such weapons.
- 3 - Press Release DCF/260 14 May 1996
A zone encompassing the entire southern hemisphere now was much closer, he said. That would be the next goal. Egypt also favoured a nuclear-weapons- free zone in the Middle East, but nothing had been done towards that end by the international community. Now, with changing circumstances in the Middle East, Egypt called on Israel to take steps to cooperate in achieving such a goal.
DAVID DAVIS, Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs of the United Kingdom, said it was a source of disappointment to his Government that 36 countries were still waiting for admission to the Conference on Disarmament. The United Kingdom supported the widest possible expansion of membership, and continued to believe that all those who had applied to date should be admitted at once.
Mr. Davis said his country's policy on nuclear testing was that there should be a universal, indefinite and effectively verifiable treaty that would ban all nuclear-test explosions. A test ban would be a genuine sacrifice for the United Kingdom, as it would limit the capability of all nuclear-weapons States to develop new weapons and to modernize their existing stocks. But that was a price worth paying. The nuclear test-ban treaty would make nuclear proliferation more difficult and would help create a security climate in which proliferation would increasingly be seen as irresponsible and unacceptable. Together with its allies, the United Kingdom had made substantial reductions in its nuclear forces.
NEVEN MADEY (Croatia) said it was a privilege to deliver the first statement on behalf of the host country to the Conference on Disarmament. Croatia's commitment to the cause of disarmament was reinforced by its own grave experience of aggression and human tragedy, suffering, and the destruction that armaments and war could cause. A comprehensive and effectively verifiable test-ban treaty would contribute greatly to nuclear disarmament and the prevention of the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Its conclusion by the end of June was a task of highest priority and must be negotiated in such a manner as to enable the signing of the document to take place at the outset of the fifty-first session of the General Assembly.
He said it was regrettable that, in Croatia and in Bosnia and Herzegovina, millions of anti-personnel land-mines were still inflicting casualties among civilians and military personnel. Croatia had declared a total ban on the use, production, import and export of such mines.
GRIGORI BERDENNIKOV (Russian Federation) said he wished to draw attention to documents relating to a test ban. On behalf of Russia and France, he wished to present a document containing a declaration adopted 20 April in Moscow, a joint statement on a nuclear test-ban treaty from participants in the Moscow Summit on nuclear safety. The document affirmed
- 4 - Press Release DCF/260 14 May 1996
the countries' commitment to complete and sign a test-ban treaty by September 1996. Test explosions or explosions of any type were opposed.
He said the Russian President had visited China, and there were favourable conditions for completion of a test-ban treaty in the near future. Russia had always favoured no threshold restrictions for the treaty, and noted that other countries now shared that conviction. Any test explosion should be banned forever, without any thresholds; Russia called for other countries to lend their support to that proposed article on the scope of the proposed treaty.
However, he was instructed to state that Russia could assess a decrease in the reliability and safety of any of the key types of Russian nuclear weapons as a threat to the supreme national interests of the country, and that, pending the ultimate elimination of all nuclear weapons -- the ultimate goal -- Russia would have to take measures to maintain its existing systems, including maintenance of a test site. Russia had had a moratorium on nuclear testing for almost five years, but completion of a treaty would be a powerful factor worldwide on limiting nuclear proliferation. He said that if Russia's supreme interests were threatened, it would use its right to withdraw from the treaty in order to conduct all necessary tests which would be called for if there was no other way to establish the high level of safety or reliability of any of the key types of Russian nuclear weapons.
BERNARD GOONETILLEKE (Sri Lanka) said progress towards a nuclear test- ban treaty had so far been satisfactory, but much more remained to be done, and the time available to the Conference was running out fast. If the goal of 28 June was to be reached, the Conference needed to move at a much faster pace. Convergence of views still had to be achieved on matters of scope, preamble, composition of the executive council, technical secretariat, international data centre, on-site inspection regime, and entry into force. Other general areas also had not been fully covered to date. The issues were both political and technical in character, and the Conference was thus at a critical juncture. Sri Lanka was quite confident that, with a greater commitment and a faster pace, the ad hoc Committee on a nuclear test-ban, under its able Chairman, would be able to complete its negotiations in time to produce the draft treaty for adoption by the General Assembly as envisaged.
* *** *